So I was a little off on the hype back then. Still, I was convinced enough to put my money where my mouth was. I went on to invest a fair chunk of my investment portfolio in them, and the rewards are paying off handsomely right now. Currently, Nintendo stock makes me more money than my job. And, at 27, this head start is lowering my retirement day every time it goes up. This is the next iPod (albeit, not with an 80% market share, but in terms of holiday shopping sprees).
"Like how the VHS clung on for years"
I'm not sure why you're being modded insightful. The adoption of DVD over VHS was the fastest migration to a new format in the history of the world.
The title said "Wikipedia points out that Bran Castle's ties to Vlad are weak and disputed," but check that again in a few minutes, I think you'll find a recent string of new ties that are as irrefutible as the fact that the world elephant population has tripled in the last couple of months.
Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics.
on
Sealand Put Up For Sale
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I'm not so certain about that. Then England would be compelled to provide postage service, free health care, etc. Given the inconvenience of the location, it might not be worthwhile.
I'm referring to the aftermatch of economic production. There's demand for widgets. Someone steps up and creates widget factory. In the old analogy of a town with a cobbler, a baker, a butcher, and a shopkeeper, things are fairly balanced. The profit from the widget is used to pay the baker, who uses his profit to pay the cobbler, etc. However, in this case, prosperity ensues for widget supplier as he supplies the entire world and now has enough money to pay every baker in every town in the world.
Let me sidestep for a moment. I've always believed that the best market to aim for (profit margins for work involved) is to create luxury items. When the wealthy have so much money that price doesn't matter, the only deciding factor is what is the "best". The producer of the "best", therefore, can charge margins unheard of for items with actual competition. This provider won't be "wealthy", but very rich. He spends his money on really good bakers, cobblers, etc. and trickle down economics takes place. Lather, rinse, repeat, every baker winds up getting more business because of superman producer at the top of the pile.
What I'm curious about, and think would deserve more study, is the true luxuries (I'm not talking about the best food from the best restaurants, or the best car - I'm talking about things that aren't needed at all) are merely created at the descretion of the man on top. Erego, the trickle-down that takes place is shifted not by the invisible hand, but by the whim of a super producer. Which makes a lot of sense, but I've never thought about that as compared to charity. I can't finish my thought at the moment, so this post has no real conclusion, but there's a post below mine about Jumbo Jets that ties in to this. The amount of money earned beyond the market supply and demand that's left over (to the ultra-rich) for dispersal in ways that do not reflect natural market dynamics.
I wish you hadn't posted AC, because that was a really good comment and actually changed my opinion a little bit on the right of government to try to intervene on economic production.
The point that the rich play a large role in dictating how production is oriented is something that needs more study.
I intend to boycott any Hobbit movie altogether (please read on, slashdotters).
I've said this several times on Digg, but always get the thumbs down from the largely adolescent juvenile crowd. The Hobbit, unlike LOTR, has a much more rhythmic momentum, and each chapter in and of itself, has an up and down cycle to it (it is a children's book after all). Am I the only one who thinks that the Hobbit would be much better served as a 21 episode mini-series? Think Sopranos, Band of Brothers, etc. Each chapter becomes an episode. Much of the storyline would therefore remain intact (a lot more happens in 302 pages of the Hobbit than the 900-or so pages of LOTR), and the original flow would be better observed.
When its all done, release a $119 nine disc DVD set. Sell 1 DVD set for every 12 people who would have gone to the movie, and you're already making serious money. Throw in advertising for the 21 episodes, and you've got a goldmine. Seriously, why isn't anyone pitching this? Haven't LOST, The West Wing, and these other dramas shown that the mini-series format is what people are now looking for in movies (big sweeping story arcs with smaller plots along the way)? Am I crazy? Please, somebody give me some honest feedback on this. Thanks!
In the United States, it's called a four way directional stop. In any of those circumstnaces you feel your life was being endangered, if you have failed to turn on your left turn signal, then that car was not breaking the law. The driver was under the belief that you were going straight as well, and a four way directional stop means that two cars opposite each other may proceed at the same time if going in directions that do not interceed with each other.
I've been a couchsurfer for a few years now. There are a few checks in place with couchsurfing.com's system. Most of the people have a credit card with their name on file vouching for who they are. No host is obligated to put anyone in their home. You're suggested to meet in a neutral place (cafe), where I then take a picture of the person. A 3rd party is always aware of itineraries.
Yes, there are psychos out there, and there's a chance something really bad could happen. Statistically speaking, I take chances with the same odds that I'll die every time I get in a car and drive somewhere. But the risk has been worth it. Having travelled quite a bit of the world, staying on people's couches, and seeing the local places from their point of view is invaluable. Hosting people from distant lands and showing them my city is quite cool, too. Is it 100% safe? No. But really, is anything? Should I ask my senator to "think of the children" and come up with some laws to help make this safer? Hell no.
My point is that people need to get involved sooner in the process. I appreciate and understand (and believe) in your academic response, but the laws in the United States don't back up your utopian complex organism. I was simply stating that when a Planning Commission is faced with approval of a development plan and the plan meets all codes and is in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan, they MUST approve it. Anything else is arbitrary and the courts say so.
Since I am in the same boat as you, philosophically, I can rectify this situation by getting people like our neighbor in the above scenario to get involved BEFORE the owner of the adjacent parcel applies for a building permit. Put into law a zoning ordinance based upon real quality of life issues, and put into law things that protect neighbors with enough mustar to pass through the US courts (and the pocket lined developers).
To the claim that I'm backing up developers, that's a farce. I'm for infill development, though. I'm for urban growth boundaries and density that supports nodes sufficient for mass transit, reducing our dependence on automobiles. To me, this scenario sounded like it might contribute to that. I can tell from your slashdot id that you're probably older than me and been in the real world longer than I, but I can't help but wonder where your lack of jaded cynicism stems from? I, too, want to accomplish what you want, but I'm seeking ways to get it down with our current court system.
There's an old saying, "if you like the view, buy it". Why shouldn't the owner of the property have the right to develop THEIR property? It's tough to face that as a neighbor, I know, but the issue is that citizen interaction must come before the step in the process where you got involved (which, unfortunately, is the step most people choose to get involved because it is when projects affect them the most). If you had been successful at stopping approval of a proposed development, the developer can simply take the project to circuit court and have the Planning Commission's actions overturned because it would most likely be arbitrary.
Rather, one must get involved at the Comprehensive Plan stage and at the formation of the documents that guide the proposals. Zoning regulations that dictate land uses, open space requirements, density, height and setback issues, etc. I'm sorry you have to live next to something you don't want to have to live next to, but that property owner had a right to use his property, too.
The grandparent wasn't trolling. It was satire. Note the non-link to a non-existent, yet parodied sub-pop culture reference for an article about harmful websites. I for one thought it was funny.
Have you seen Rupert Murdoch's page? I hope he doesn't let future potential employers find it when interviewing him. Of course, with the Patriot Act and Total Information Awareness underway, I bet Murdoch's myspace page will windup hurting his chances of advancement.
Which just brings this argument full circle - the Firefox statistics are as arbitrary as the story. So really, what do we know?
I got into an argument today about whether Pirates of the Caribbean 2 was any good. He said that 77% of viewers gave it a good rating, while only 50% of the critics did. I countered that his statistic was skewed because the critics had been forced ot see it (more or less), and the movie had only been out for three days meaning the only public to see it were those with a pent-up demand for the product (people with a natural bias towards liking it). That the 77% of the public liked it was only because its frontloaded with fanboys.
I was going to make a "first post", but I think I read the Army is patenting that. Part of their Military Initiative to kill first, ask questions later.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's my blog prediction from September, 2005: Original Prediction.
So I was a little off on the hype back then. Still, I was convinced enough to put my money where my mouth was. I went on to invest a fair chunk of my investment portfolio in them, and the rewards are paying off handsomely right now. Currently, Nintendo stock makes me more money than my job. And, at 27, this head start is lowering my retirement day every time it goes up. This is the next iPod (albeit, not with an 80% market share, but in terms of holiday shopping sprees).
Flimsy state? Not phallic enough. Solid state? Rock on.
Have you seen the google van? A quick stop in Italy to make some modifications to the van, and you'll get that explicit consent, right boss?
Hey Tony, get out of the van, this guy doesn't wanna sign the consent...
You, sir, have the funniest sig on slashdot I've ever seen.
Actually, I thought it was too lengthy of a summary. Doubt it was "fair use", and we all know paraphrasing is stealing, too. Sue the bastard!
Semi-trucks have air brakes. You don't.
"Like how the VHS clung on for years" I'm not sure why you're being modded insightful. The adoption of DVD over VHS was the fastest migration to a new format in the history of the world.
The title said "Wikipedia points out that Bran Castle's ties to Vlad are weak and disputed," but check that again in a few minutes, I think you'll find a recent string of new ties that are as irrefutible as the fact that the world elephant population has tripled in the last couple of months.
I'm not so certain about that. Then England would be compelled to provide postage service, free health care, etc. Given the inconvenience of the location, it might not be worthwhile.
I'm referring to the aftermatch of economic production. There's demand for widgets. Someone steps up and creates widget factory. In the old analogy of a town with a cobbler, a baker, a butcher, and a shopkeeper, things are fairly balanced. The profit from the widget is used to pay the baker, who uses his profit to pay the cobbler, etc. However, in this case, prosperity ensues for widget supplier as he supplies the entire world and now has enough money to pay every baker in every town in the world.
Let me sidestep for a moment. I've always believed that the best market to aim for (profit margins for work involved) is to create luxury items. When the wealthy have so much money that price doesn't matter, the only deciding factor is what is the "best". The producer of the "best", therefore, can charge margins unheard of for items with actual competition. This provider won't be "wealthy", but very rich. He spends his money on really good bakers, cobblers, etc. and trickle down economics takes place. Lather, rinse, repeat, every baker winds up getting more business because of superman producer at the top of the pile.
What I'm curious about, and think would deserve more study, is the true luxuries (I'm not talking about the best food from the best restaurants, or the best car - I'm talking about things that aren't needed at all) are merely created at the descretion of the man on top. Erego, the trickle-down that takes place is shifted not by the invisible hand, but by the whim of a super producer. Which makes a lot of sense, but I've never thought about that as compared to charity. I can't finish my thought at the moment, so this post has no real conclusion, but there's a post below mine about Jumbo Jets that ties in to this. The amount of money earned beyond the market supply and demand that's left over (to the ultra-rich) for dispersal in ways that do not reflect natural market dynamics.
I wish you hadn't posted AC, because that was a really good comment and actually changed my opinion a little bit on the right of government to try to intervene on economic production.
The point that the rich play a large role in dictating how production is oriented is something that needs more study.
Mod parent up!
I intend to boycott any Hobbit movie altogether (please read on, slashdotters).
I've said this several times on Digg, but always get the thumbs down from the largely adolescent juvenile crowd. The Hobbit, unlike LOTR, has a much more rhythmic momentum, and each chapter in and of itself, has an up and down cycle to it (it is a children's book after all). Am I the only one who thinks that the Hobbit would be much better served as a 21 episode mini-series? Think Sopranos, Band of Brothers, etc. Each chapter becomes an episode. Much of the storyline would therefore remain intact (a lot more happens in 302 pages of the Hobbit than the 900-or so pages of LOTR), and the original flow would be better observed.
When its all done, release a $119 nine disc DVD set. Sell 1 DVD set for every 12 people who would have gone to the movie, and you're already making serious money. Throw in advertising for the 21 episodes, and you've got a goldmine. Seriously, why isn't anyone pitching this? Haven't LOST, The West Wing, and these other dramas shown that the mini-series format is what people are now looking for in movies (big sweeping story arcs with smaller plots along the way)? Am I crazy? Please, somebody give me some honest feedback on this. Thanks!
Yes because we all know that a parent who doesn't spend the night in line to keep a child from getting upset is not a dedicated parent.
In the United States, it's called a four way directional stop. In any of those circumstnaces you feel your life was being endangered, if you have failed to turn on your left turn signal, then that car was not breaking the law. The driver was under the belief that you were going straight as well, and a four way directional stop means that two cars opposite each other may proceed at the same time if going in directions that do not interceed with each other.
The only thing I trust is anonymous cowards. Transparency indeed. (insert 19th Century Victorian *hmph*).
I've been a couchsurfer for a few years now. There are a few checks in place with couchsurfing.com's system. Most of the people have a credit card with their name on file vouching for who they are. No host is obligated to put anyone in their home. You're suggested to meet in a neutral place (cafe), where I then take a picture of the person. A 3rd party is always aware of itineraries.
Yes, there are psychos out there, and there's a chance something really bad could happen. Statistically speaking, I take chances with the same odds that I'll die every time I get in a car and drive somewhere. But the risk has been worth it. Having travelled quite a bit of the world, staying on people's couches, and seeing the local places from their point of view is invaluable. Hosting people from distant lands and showing them my city is quite cool, too. Is it 100% safe? No. But really, is anything? Should I ask my senator to "think of the children" and come up with some laws to help make this safer? Hell no.
Microsoft isn't exactly known for turning a profit with it's gaming division.
My point is that people need to get involved sooner in the process. I appreciate and understand (and believe) in your academic response, but the laws in the United States don't back up your utopian complex organism. I was simply stating that when a Planning Commission is faced with approval of a development plan and the plan meets all codes and is in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan, they MUST approve it. Anything else is arbitrary and the courts say so.
Since I am in the same boat as you, philosophically, I can rectify this situation by getting people like our neighbor in the above scenario to get involved BEFORE the owner of the adjacent parcel applies for a building permit. Put into law a zoning ordinance based upon real quality of life issues, and put into law things that protect neighbors with enough mustar to pass through the US courts (and the pocket lined developers).
To the claim that I'm backing up developers, that's a farce. I'm for infill development, though. I'm for urban growth boundaries and density that supports nodes sufficient for mass transit, reducing our dependence on automobiles. To me, this scenario sounded like it might contribute to that. I can tell from your slashdot id that you're probably older than me and been in the real world longer than I, but I can't help but wonder where your lack of jaded cynicism stems from? I, too, want to accomplish what you want, but I'm seeking ways to get it down with our current court system.
Disclaimer: I am a city planner.
There's an old saying, "if you like the view, buy it". Why shouldn't the owner of the property have the right to develop THEIR property? It's tough to face that as a neighbor, I know, but the issue is that citizen interaction must come before the step in the process where you got involved (which, unfortunately, is the step most people choose to get involved because it is when projects affect them the most). If you had been successful at stopping approval of a proposed development, the developer can simply take the project to circuit court and have the Planning Commission's actions overturned because it would most likely be arbitrary.
Rather, one must get involved at the Comprehensive Plan stage and at the formation of the documents that guide the proposals. Zoning regulations that dictate land uses, open space requirements, density, height and setback issues, etc. I'm sorry you have to live next to something you don't want to have to live next to, but that property owner had a right to use his property, too.
The grandparent wasn't trolling. It was satire. Note the non-link to a non-existent, yet parodied sub-pop culture reference for an article about harmful websites. I for one thought it was funny.
PureTNA, baby. I've seen those wrestling moves. They're best performed on the opposite sex.
Have you seen Rupert Murdoch's page? I hope he doesn't let future potential employers find it when interviewing him. Of course, with the Patriot Act and Total Information Awareness underway, I bet Murdoch's myspace page will windup hurting his chances of advancement.
Which just brings this argument full circle - the Firefox statistics are as arbitrary as the story. So really, what do we know?
I got into an argument today about whether Pirates of the Caribbean 2 was any good. He said that 77% of viewers gave it a good rating, while only 50% of the critics did. I countered that his statistic was skewed because the critics had been forced ot see it (more or less), and the movie had only been out for three days meaning the only public to see it were those with a pent-up demand for the product (people with a natural bias towards liking it). That the 77% of the public liked it was only because its frontloaded with fanboys.
I was going to make a "first post", but I think I read the Army is patenting that. Part of their Military Initiative to kill first, ask questions later.
Completely off topic, but I went to your city last month for my honeymoon. It was one of the best places I've been in my life.